Law, politics, pop culture, sports, and a touch of Oregon.

About this site

CommentsWhen you submit a comment, it won't be published until approved. This is to cut down on comment spam. However, I will also edit or block comments that are profane or offensive.

No Legal AdviceAlthough I may from time to time discuss legal issues on this blog, nothing that I post should be construed as legal advice, nor as creating an attorney-client relationship between you and me. In fact, there's a good chance I'm not licensed to practice law wherever you are. If you need legal advice, you should consult an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.

Personal ViewThis blog is neither affiliated with my employer nor hosted by it. It is maintained through TypePad, and I pay the hosting fees. Nothing that is posted here should be construed as anything other than the views of the particular author of the post.

Although Rosen is a law prof at George Washington University, this is more of a biography than an legal academic book. Rosen looks at four pairs of men -- 7 Supreme Court justices and 1 President -- who collectively present evidence for Rosen's thesis, which is that moderate pragmatists end up having more long term influence than ideologically pure warriors.

The pairs he examines are:

1) John Marshall (M/P) and Thomas Jefferson (IPW)

2) John Marshall Harlan (M/P) and Oliver Wendell Holmes (IPW)

3) Hugo Black (M/P) and Melvin William Douglas (IPW)

4) William Rehnquist (M/P) and Antonin Scalia (IPW)

Of these, the only ideologically pure warrior to have influenced constitutional law in the long run, according to Rosen, is Holmes, and only because he moderated his judicial philosophy in the 1920s.

As I said, this is a fun book to read. Rosen does a good job of bringing the figures to life, with a journalist's eye for telling details, such as the skepticism with which the other justices viewed Douglas's first draft of Griswold. It seems that at the same time that Douglas was waxing about the importance and sanctity of marriage, he was in the process of divorcing his third wife so that he could marry his fourth wife, a twentysomething student.

Interestingly, Rosen paints a pretty sympathetic and flattering picture of Rehnquist. True, he does note that the Chief Justice "probably lied" at his confirmation hearing when he testified that a memo he wrote as a law clerk to Justice Jackson -- urging adherence to the separate but equal doctrine in Plessy v. Ferguson -- was meant to express the justice's views, not his own. But overall, Rosen notes how Rehnquist was relatively moderate, especially compared to Scalia, and that Rehnquist's influence has correspondingly been greater.